Monday, December 1, 2008

A friend of mine mentioned something that I had to see to believe. The Cincinnati Zoo offering a two-for-one ticket including the Zoo's annual Christmas light and decoration spectacular with a ticket to the Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky. Now in all honesty I got the note and went to check it out but couldn't find anything on the Zoo's website about it. I thought it was a joke at my expense. I did not; however, go to the museum's website -- after all there are some things a browser should never be pointed at.

Well I mentioned to my friend that I thought his joke was funny, and he was annoyed to think that I would doubt him. So he sends me a link to the Cincinnati Enquirer and, lo and behold, there was a deal just as he described. But -- and here is why I say Yea! -- there was so many outraged calls that the Zoo killed the deal and pulled it off their website. So I did apologize to my friend in thinking he was pulling a fast one -- which is something he is known for! He accepted in good grace and warned me "Next time you better be ready for something big!" While I dread that day because his jokes do tend to be pretty creative and nerve-wracking, for today I salute the people from the area that called in and complained. If I had heard of it before they pulled it, I would have joined you!

Now I do believe this was simply someone in the advertising department who got a bit excited, maybe someone thinking the Creation Museum was a real museum instead a ken Ham ego-trip. To be sure I have never seen any disregard for science at the Cincinnati zoo. It's one of my favorite places and my granddaughter will be seeing their displays later this month. Whatever the reason, the concerned citizens in this area came through.

Oh and by the way, none of the two-fer tickers were sold, which makes it even better.

Addendum: I received a couple of email complaining a little about my post. The gist is that I didn't explain my problem with this apparent two-fer deal. They weren't supporting the deal, but they weren't sure what my issue with it was. Fair question.

What Ken Ham is desperate for is validity, as in the recognition of any organization that clearly supports science. I feel a zoo, like the Cincinnati Zoo, with ecological and evolutionary programs involving wildlife, wildlife preservation, and work with endangered species would offer Ken Ham and his Creationistic Folly a validation that he can never earn through actual accurate scientific work. I feel it would be a detriment for the Zoo to be associated with such a character and it would be a LIE to put in print that the Zoo supports the displays and obvious poor scholarship represented by Ken Ham's Abortion.

That should be clear enough. This is not about tourism, it is not about people being unfair to little Kennie. All it does is sever a relationship that would cause more damage to the Zoo than good. I am sure Kennie will call it an infringement of business, but it no way is the Zoo preventing people from spending good money on a bad idea -- namely visiting his place of worship. They are just refusing to offer him the validity that he wanted. I am also sure Kenny will make some claim about how unfair some people are and that the calls were unwarranted. I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to associate the people who called with Nazi Eugenics. No tactic, no matter how reprehensible, seems to be too low for him. But he is wrong! Severing this business arrangement because of the perception that the Zoo supports his Folly is the smart play by the Zoo and I am glad this was brought to light before any damage was done to the Zoo. Any collateral damage done to ken and his Disaster is just lucky!

I have no plans to search for any reaction by little kennie, because like I said there are somethings you shouldn't ask your browser to display.

Wait, I spoke too soon. PZ Myers has a post with little Kennie's reaction. Apparently he claiming some sort of 'Atheistic agenda', 'Evolution worship', and even claims that it was purely a business arrangement. Yea right! Typical knee-jerk reaction on kennie's part. You can get the link to kennie's blog there.

3 comments:

I know, commenting on my own post, but I couldn't resist this piece of related news. Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/12/ken_ham_still_whining_but_an_o.php), PZ Myers blog wrote up that Ken Ham was again complaining and trying to resurrect his public image. Ham pointed to a poll (http://nky.cincinnati.com/) in the Cincy Enquirer home page and earlier today he was crowing about 86% voted No, that the promotion does not mean that the zoo endorses the museum or that the museum endorses the zoo.

Well I wonder if he will comment now that the poll is 97.7% Yes -- the museum promotes a religious point of view that conflicts with the zoo's scientific mission.

Ham didn't mention how many people voted, but as of right now over 36,000 saying Yes, and only 847 saying No. If Ham does mention it again it will be to claim how intolerant people are in the world, or at least those who read Pharyngula.

Yup, that poll was totally Pharyngulized! Hee hee. PZ's readers have been coming over in droves to vote. The point is to show how inaccurate online polls are, and also to rub it in Ham's face because Ham said himself that the poll was scientifically invalid but STILL said the poll showed people weren't intolerant (he made that remark when "No - the promotion shouldn't have been cancelled" was winning 84% to 16%). In other words, Pharynguloids wanted to shut him up and humiliate him. As we know though, Ham will turn it around and say this proves his point about "intolerant atheists" picking on the poor martyr fundies. Sigh.

Not sure if Ken Ham has responded, but I took a quick peek at the poll again, approximately 20 hours after my original comment. The numbers have exploded, well on the Yes side. It's now 258,515 Yes's to 931 No's. So that means Ken Ham has picked up all of 84 votes and the side of reason picked up over 222,000.

Wow!

I know Ken already set the stage by saying that it was unscientific, but that certainly didn't stop him from crowing when it was in his favor back when there were a total of 400 votes. he will also probably make a comment on intolerance, which I do find hilarious. We are supposed to allow him to spew his nonsense in the name of tolerance? Why? A lie is a lie is a lie no matter what religious coating you put on it. There are no such thing as unicorns, dinosaurs and men did not co-exist, and there was no flood of world-wide proportions.

Welcome to my little corner of the Internet

This blog is more a way for me to clarify my own thinking and opinions more than for any other purpose. I like writing things down, having links to source material, and offering my own $.02. I find a blog let's me do that. I encourage comments and emails from any who wish to do so. I am not shy, as you might have noticed, and I am also not afraid of a dissenting view. I might disagree with you, but I will defend your right to say what you think as well as I expect the same respect!

Why blog on this particular topic? Well after seeing the tactics of groups like the Discovery Institute, I couldn't stay silent on the subject. After the Discovery Institute spins their lies, after the defendants in the Dover trial LIED under oath, and after Texas fired their state science curriculum director for forwarding an email appropriate to her duties-- I couldn't sit back and just watch.

I don't filter any comments, with two exceptions. Comments that are nothing more than a link to some other website hawking some service or material will get deleted. Also any comment that is abusive or derogatory will also get deleted. To date (July 2016) I have had to delete very few service/material types and only one truly abusive comment!

Thanks.

About Me

I am a family man who works in Ohio, Information Technology and computer programming are my areas of expertise. For those of you who know me, growing grass in my backyard is obviously not, so quit laughing!
Why blog? In all honesty, why not? It's fun, has been very educational, and it also has offered me insights into people and positions I may not have thought much about before. (http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers)